This piece has been sent to both PCGS and NGC, neither of which were inclined to condemn or certify it, due to its either its extreme rarity or enigmatic origins. However, after careful study we believe it to be a genuine product of the China Mint which has yet to be published.”

The buyer must have alot of faith in the auctioneer. Reminds me of a quote:

“Always believe in the auctioneer because there are some questions that even PCGS or NGC can't answer.” - unknown

It was my pleasure to have the opportunity to see this pattern bimetal unicorn.

The bidding was very active in the auction room, starting low and slowly rising, as multiple bidders tried to buy it.

It is hard to imagine the price which will be realized in a future auction if and when NGC does get the information required from the mint to authenticate this pattern coin.

Imagine having a collection which is composed of this pattern coin alone. It would a collection which I would be proud to own.

Mark Bonke

Can bidder examine the coin closely to see the details?

Based on the pictures posted as website, I am in totally agreement with NGC and PCGS. The coin is highly questionable as shown in the attached pictures copied from website and enlarged section pictures vs. 1995. First three pictures are 1996 questionable pattern coin. The fourth picture is 1995.

I do not know what the pattern coin should look like. I own the 1994 and 1995 bimetal unicorn coins. I own many of the bimetal panda coins and medals. When I held it and looked at it, I felt "comfortable" with it. Is it authentic? Obviously, the experts at NGC and PCGS could not confirm authenticity. I will never have their expertise. If I owned it, would I be pleased? Yes. If someone else indicated it was not authentic, would I care? No. Over time, the authenticity will be resolved. NGC contacts at the various Chinese Mints are too good for issues such as this to remain unresolved for long.

Based on the pictures posted as website, I am in totally agreement with NGC and PCGS. The coin is highly questionable as shown in the attached pictures copied from website and enlarged section pictures vs. 1995. First three pictures are 1996 questionable pattern coin. The fourth picture is 1995.

After looking and comparing the pictures provided by poco, I have 2 possible conclusions:

I do not know what the pattern coin should look like. I own the 1994 and 1995 bimetal unicorn coins. I own many of the bimetal panda coins and medals. When I held it and looked at it, I felt "comfortable" with it. Is it authentic? Obviously, the experts at NGC and PCGS could not confirm authenticity. I will never have their expertise. If I owned it, would I be pleased? Yes. If someone else indicated it was not authentic, would I care? No. Over time, the authenticity will be resolved. NGC contacts at the various Chinese Mints are too good for issues such as this to remain unresolved for long.

Mark Bonke

Time is good for healing physical wounds and emotional hurts, but not authenticity.

Based on the pictures posted as website, I am in totally agreement with NGC and PCGS. The coin is highly questionable as shown in the attached pictures copied from website and enlarged section pictures vs. 1995. First three pictures are 1996 questionable pattern coin. The fourth picture is 1995.

I have learned from poconopenn over the years....interesting how the stack's unicorn lacks the three dimensional detail vs the authentic 1995 (maybe its lighting)

Also, $60K is strictly a gamble for a possible "fantasy" coin. I would much rather wait for clarification and pay up for the real thing. Also, I find it hard to believe that someone could not assist NGC or PCGS with the coin. Martin would possibly know if its real given his historical background with the unicorn series. Clearly the seller could not assist either TPG or provide docs to support which would, in my mind, seriously question its origin.

I have learned from poconopenn over the years....interesting how the stack's unicorn lacks the three dimensional detail vs the authentic 1995 (maybe its lighting)

Also, $60K is strictly a gamble for a possible "fantasy" coin. I would much rather wait for clarification and pay up for the real thing. Also, I find it hard to believe that someone could not assist NGC or PCGS with the coin. Martin would possibly know if its real given his historical background with the unicorn series. Clearly the seller could not assist either TPG or provide docs to support which would, in my mind, seriously question its origin.

The auction house estimated a value of $3000 to $5000, so $60K is certainly unexpected. Now I think it is even less likely that NGC/PCGS is willing to guarantee a $60K coin with a grading fee of $125 unless very solid documentation can be located.

I would agree an EDM duplication process may explain the lost of details, but I'm struggling to find a bi-metallic pattern that matches exactly the texts of the outer rings. There are not that many bi-metallic made so it is not hard to search thru them all and I can't find a matching pattern. Actually I was hoping to find a matching pattern after 1996 thus proving the coin was made after 1996 and therefore a fake, but that search was not successful. If it is a forgery, it is done with truly frightening skill and at $60K more of the forged coins are likely to show up.

Also, the rim on the reverse side is unusually thick while the obverse has no rim at all. This does not match any 1996 gold unicorn 1/4 ounce. This is very sloppy given the Mint has produced bimetals for several years before 1996.

Fortunately, the resolution of pictures at StacksBrowers website are excellent and pictures can be cropped and enlarged to see the details. Attached are another enlarged section. 1996 bimetallic unicorn shows many extra materials in the crevices of Chinese characters and number VS. 1995 (second picture). Clearly, the production die of this coin was copied from a coin not from a master die. The lighting may effect the picture. IMO, the differences are not all caused by the lighting.

The bidder may be able to examine the coin closely by looking into the displace box. However, the detail differences and defects can not be detected without a high power magnifier.